policequestfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:PQ Omnipedia: Canon Policy
Canon, what should I say? Similar to the same treatment I have tried to practice on all the Sierra wikis. Avoid using the term in the main pages if at all possible. Unless it can be quoted directly from an interview. I try not to use the term, in order to keep things as neutral as possible, and avoid placing my own interpretations on things. I prefer the use of "official" or "continuity" whenever possible. However, there are a few issues that need to be pointed out. Information from the The Police Quest Casebook (particularly the novels) are nearly completely off track from the in-game continuity... As mentioned in the article the continuity diverges further and further with each novel. The sections between novels follow the details as shown in the game itself, giving walkthroughs. The character section in the back is a kind of mix of ingame plot references, and names from the novels applied back on the ingame characters, and some of the ingame background information (usually without novel version of events). So that section is of some use for characters without names (or without first names). It is however useless in the case where characters are given alternative names. Where the same character is given two alternative names I have usually created more than one article (unless one of the two names is specifically a nickname). In general while I have avoided using the term canon, I have utilized details like character names from the book whenever a character is not given a name in the games. In most cases where there is a contradiction between the games and the novels, the information in the game takes precedence (as it is the "nonfictious" version of the story.) These names are usually pulled from the back of the book. In a few cases details may be cross-referenced with the novels, whenever the details from the novels don't interfere with in-game stories. Otherwise I treat the novels portions as essentially an "official" but parallel version of events, outside of the games. The parts that completely contradicdt the games will either get their own pages or own sections. To be fair I also point out that there are major differences between the original trilogy, and the remake of PQ1. In general the original trilogy will take precedence over the remake. (I.E. PQ1EGA and PQ2 information trumps PQ1VGA mainl due to an issue of a certain important character that appears in both PQ1 and PQ2, but not the remake of PQ1. I have treated the remake as an alternative history (much like the Casebook), and as an event occuring chronologically after PQ3 (though thats referring more to the production, than having to do with continuity). However as an alternative history its just as "valid" as the original trilogy. It just doesn't replace details from the original series. Any details it contains are treated as equal to original trilogy, but do not trump the original trilogy. I think of them as being parallel to each other. Where things are completely different I've seperated that information into its separate pages or sections (this includes many characters unique to the remake). Where details are fairly innocouous and don't don't directly affect the story, I include both versions. For example in the article concerning Carol Grounds, I mentioned she is the proprieter of Caffeine Carols and Carol's Caffeine Castle. Although those locations exist parallel to each other. The details may be more specific and seperated in later sections of the article. However, beyond that I have treated the book to be a kind of official parallel storyline, and have chronicled those differences in its own section of the article, or in some cases split into its own article. The Official Book of Police Quest on the other hand represents essentially direct and mostly accurate portrayal of the the original trilogy (the PQ1 remake is kept seperate with pictures only). The book is described as coming from Sonny Bond's personal diary and police files. So I see it as essentially equal to original game trilogy, and part of that particular version of the universe. It offers some further insight into that version of events. However, it suffers from one minor issue with Sonny not getting the best outcome in PQ3 (case trial), but that is due to a ingame bug that has affected most players. Its a point of trivia that it also one of those ingame events in which will end with the same score outcome not matter if you win or lose. As long as you do everything right, give the right evidence you will get a full score. You will receive same number of points no matter what time you put on the ticket. Since winning the case is optional, I have tried to treat both outcomes as being "equal" events. The loss of the case just has a little more support since its in the novelization (though winning seems like the optimal solution). Beyond that PQ4 and the later SWAT games can be treated as continuing on from the original trilogy timeline wise. Though it seems to share production dates of the post-PQ1 remake (which has an affect on Sonny's age when he appears in the games). So its unclear if SWAT games are following a post 1992 (PQ1 remake) in-universe date or the post 1991 (from PQ3). The related trivia here is that the ingame dates of each game of the series tends to correspond with the date the game was produced, for many of the games. Because of this unknown, I chose to combine all dates on the Timeline article, and don't try to think of the anachronisms and parodoxes involved. Since certain characters like Sonny Bonds have different "birthdates", all have been included. There is no way to designate which is "right", since the timeline has more to do with date of each game's production more than following any coherent inuniverse timeline. Again, basically I believe they should all be treated as equal merit (since all are official). But its not safe to define which path of the timeline is some kind of "canon". I hope this helps people out.Baggins 19:01, April 19, 2010 (UTC) Sierraverse easteregg/injokes Again following the pattern on the other wikis, I treat the crossover details with a straight face. At least ones that are used from a in-universe perspective, such as the references to Daventry, Graham and Rosella in PQ1 and PQ2 in the newspapers, or the appearance of Larry Laffer in PQ2. A random reference that shows up as simply narrative joke only (such as in the death notice) but does not describe part of the world, is of less importantance, and is more of a 4th wall issue. I try to avoid creating pages for the latter, as they are generally going consist of a small stub, and don't generally offer anything useful. Discretion advised.Baggins 19:16, April 19, 2010 (UTC)